You are demanding. Here’s a cross-cultural study of IQ and personality. It finds that the two explain 70 percent of the variation in GDP per capita across countries.
Now, I am going to ask you a logical question:
Let’s say the elite schools admit students on the basis of SAT and high school GPA, both. Then, the mezzanine schools admit student on the same basis, both SAT and high school GPA, from the students not selected by the elite schools.
What do you think is the predictive power of IQ alone in the remaining students, those not accepted by either the elite or mezzanine schools? Basically, high IQ and low GPA students?
Why are you so resistant to the obvious fact that high potential and low effort = loser. In a sense, we might suspect a more culpable loser since they have the potential. But, more often than not, upon investigation you find that there are reasons for their lack of effort, such as personality disorders, addictive disorders, and trauma.
Some schools think they can turn such students (high potential, low effort) around; at least, they’re willing to try if parents or some other third party is willing to pay enough money.
It’s funny, how these things work out. Sometimes we call it the price of genius. Indeed, that some among the most gifted are in some ways dysfunctional is a trope. But, the correlations between IQ and many aspects of personality are simply random. You’re as likely to be pretty and smart; and, pretty and not smart. But, people are fixated on Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe.
Getting back to the topic, are race gaps in IQ genetic, Charles Murray in 2012 used the results of the NAEP to track races gaps. Back then, he saw that the race gap was falling among 4th graders in math. Updating his observation, the gap was 15 percent back in 1990; and was 10 percent in 2019 (I’m avoiding the 2022 figures because of the significant decline). This correlates with my argument that the race gap in IQ is declining and, therefore, cannot be genetic. It’s a result of welfarism.
That is not my intent.
We seem to be talking past one another.
Here is my point again. The message from the Bell Curve was that there is a correlation between IQ and societal achievements. I don't dispute your other points.
While I certainly do not dispute the other considerations, all of your sources seem to point to measurements across less than half the world. I used an example of the SAT in my last comment. Do they use SAT in most African countries or even China? The last source you quoted was from 51 countries, which represents about 25% of the countries in the world.
My point is that the book uses one measure, IQ. And it shows a correlation. That's all.
In other words, while I agree the points you raised are valid and will improve the accuracy of prediction, there is no consistent measurement of them across 195 nations in the world. The Bell Curve did not measure those issues and was able to make a reasonable prediction with IQ alone.
While I certainly don't disagree with most of your points, I would take issue with this point.
There are many factors that shape genetics. One of those is natural selection, which is a significant contributor.
Take the Ashkenazi Jews (just one example), who have been a persecuted ethnic group for much of history as we know it. They were challenged for the survival of their group early on in history (and continue to be challenged by the world), they became the so-called bookkeepers for merchants using Roman numerals to do their math (later to become merchants on their own), etc. So, through environmental factors and natural selection, they became more intelligent (a genetic trait). Yes. Environmental conditions such as their society, culture, cohesion, and focus on education are significant contributors, but genetics play a major role.
By the way, I am not Jewish but a lowly Anglo. But I so admire some of their traits/success.